German offer to the US in 1940

[Finbarr the Fair]

I am not saying it was necessarily morally right to take Czechia but there were good strategic reasons for doing that other than just land grabing and politics is not a moral game. Having a foreign state bulge into your territory like Czechoslovakia did is a great risk in the long term unless that state is an ally which CS was not. I actually think a lot of other statesman would have done the same in that situation.

Can I point out that that attitude is precisely why Hitler (or you) could not be trusted by FDR and the US? And why any Agreement reached with you or Nazi Germany would be meaningless. So would not be contemplated by the US

Munich was meant to be Peace in Our Time remember.

 

[jsb]

why the US considered Germany the main enemy in 1940 already. The answers I got thus far are insufficient imho but maybe I am missing something.

The Monroe Doctrine (and isolation in general) really only worked not due to US super strength but due to Europe being divided and therefore unable to unite to challenge US...... Having a united Europe especially one not friendly is a nightmare for US long term, note that post WWII Soviet/WP only held the weaker & poorer 1/2 of Europe and was still very powerful. US has to try and prevent any European power from holding all of Europe just like GB did earlier......

 

[McPherson]

I am not saying it was necessarily morally right to take Czechia but there were good strategic reasons for doing that other than just land grabing and politics is not a moral game. Having a foreign state bulge into your territory like Czechoslovakia did is a great risk in the long term unless that state is an ally which CS was not. I actually think a lot of other statesman would have done the same in that situation.

International Law is a messy business, but it has rules. The fact that the Weimar Republic did not see the need to try for the Sudetenland, or Austria, kind of makes nonsense of the argument offered. Only a criminal aggressor regime would be nervous about

Having a foreign state bulge into your territory like Czechoslovakia did.

or would offer that as an excuse to violate sovereignty or established borders, by blackmail (Munich) or war of aggression (Polish Corridor Crisis).

There was no history of aggression by Poland or Czechoslovakia against Germany to incite such an excuse.

It would be as criminal in International Law, and I mean CRIMINAL, as if the United States demanded Canada hand over British Columbia and the Yukon because the Americans were afraid the Canadians were after Alaska and threatened to annex those provinces by force.

Does one not understand?

 

[Crowbar Six]

That genocidal thing was not that obvious at that point. Also we assume no close alliance with Japan ITTL.
But let's assume Germany was a more classically fascist state with less hate for the Jews and less genocide (Mein Kampf would never have been written) but still willing to regain lost territories and restore German glory by military means if necessary. The foreign policy would be the same as IOTL until 1940 (Rheinland, Anschluss, etc.) the only difference is a less radical ideology.
Would the US be ok with leaving Europe alone in that case? If not, why so?

The US saw Germany as an existential threat. If it was successful in taking the whole of Western Europe and beat Russia that would leave them with access to a substantial and developed industrial base, there would also be nothing to stop them accessing mineral resources in Africa and oil in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. The Germans would be able to build a very large and capable navy which would give them lots of bases on the Atlantic, if they were quick off the mark and there is no RN interference they may even be able to grab Iceland and even Greenland. If left to their own devices the US Navy faces a significant threat to Pan American trade in the Atlantic due to U Boats and raiders, the Germans are likely to actually to have a go at some version of Plan Z with at least a few additional Bismark's or even some of the proposed H class ships two of which were laid down in 1939 at least and if they can rely on UK and French yards they can build a lot of smaller units fairly quickly together with any RN or MN units they can hoover up. They also face a substantial threat in the Pacific from Japan. They would need to build a substantial fleet to deal with both threats from their own resources, they will also need to seriously push aircraft development and try to get the B29 and/or B36 into production asap. Consider the Manhattan program funded as a super-priority program.

 

[Furthark]

International Law is a messy business, but it has rules. The fact that the Weimar Republic did not see the need to try for the Sudetenland, or Austria, kind of makes nonsense of the argument offered. Only a criminal aggressor regime would be nervous about



or would offer that as an excuse to violate sovereignty or established borders, by blackmail (Munich) or war of aggression (Polish Corridor Crisis).

There was no history of aggression by Poland or Czechoslovakia against Germany to incite such an excuse.

It would be as criminal in International Law, and I mean CRIMINAL, as if the United States demanded Canada hand over British Columbia and the Yukon because the Americans were afraid the Canadians were after Alaska and threatened to annex those provinces by force.

Does one not understand?

Poland itself had pretty imperialist and expansionist mentality at that time.

Datei:Postkarte der polnischen Volksbüchereien Juni 1939.jpg – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Poland itself had pretty imperialist and expansionist mentality at that time.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:postkarte_der_polnischen_Volksbüchereien_Juni_1939.jpg

So what? Really. So what? Did Poland attack Germany and slaughter a quarter of its population?

 

[Furthark]

So what? Really. So what? Did Poland attack Germany and slaughter a quarter of its population?

This was a response to crowbar six saying that Poland never showed any hostility towards Germany which is simply not true.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

This was a response to crowbar six saying that Poland never showed any hostility towards Germany which is simply not true.

And so your proof is one propaganda poster. Poland in 1939 was no threat to Germany and saying otherwise is just nonsense.

 

[Furthark]

And so your proof is one propaganda poster. Poland in 1939 was no threat to Germany and saying otherwise is just nonsense.

Propaganda? If you look at the poster you can see the text is written in polish.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Propaganda? If you look at the poster you can see the text is written in polish.

Poland had propaganda. I'm not disputing that there were elements of the Polish government that were indeed expansionist. What I'm decrying is the idea that Poland in any way threatened Germany.

 

[TDM]

Poland itself had pretty imperialist and expansionist mentality at that time.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:postkarte_der_polnischen_Volksbüchereien_Juni_1939.jpg

So what? Really. So what? Did Poland attack Germany and slaughter a quarter of its population?

I'm pretty sure that from Hitler and Co's perspective the mere existence of Poland as a separate entity counts as Polish expansionist Imperialism

 

[Johnrankins]

That doesn't explain Destroyers for Bases

Or that the US was selling only to one side, or the fact that the USN was escorting freighters across the Atlantic, or was giving free weapons and supplies to GB and its allies etc. , none of which a "neutral" country should technically be doing.

 

[McPherson]

Propaganda? If you look at the poster you can see the text is written in polish.

The Gliewitz Incident. Propaganda incident? Interesting how Polish "aggression" incidents had to be staged to convince the criminal regime's own polity that the war was justified. A false flag (CIA term) is often mounted by international law breaking criminals to create an excuse to legalize their criminality.

The kicker is: if one does not believe that one is breaking international law, then a "false flag" to cover an international action is kind of legally and morally pointless. IOW, the criminals KNEW they were criminals.

 

[Johnrankins]

Several points:
1. Germany isn't really in a position to make a proposal like that. They don't control the British West Indies or the DEI. It's not their to offer. They could tell the Americans "we wouldn't mind if you took those places over" but if the US wanted to take the DEI there was nothing the Germans could do about it anyway, so actually they're not offering the US anything substantial.
2. Once the Americans do take over those territories, there's nothing preventing the US from sending assistance to the Allies anyway. I mean, if American troops are already in the DEI and the US to send lend-lease to Britain and the USSR then there's nothing the Germans can do about it. Except maybe declare war on the US to try and stop it, which is precisely what they wanted to avoid so what's the point.
3. American public opinion at the time was not friendly to Germany. The majority of the US public viewed the possibility of a German victory as something that would go against the interests and well-being of the US (and the world, for those who cared about it) and pro-British sentiment was high, especially after the blitz. If the US was to sign this semi-alliance with Germany it would cause massive uproar.
4. US leaders would, rightfully, mistrust Germany, after all the promises they've broken and countries they've invaded. They'd clearly see any proposal like that as an attempt by the Germans to avoid any repercussions for future land-grabs and wars of aggression.

And if the US really wanted those colonies the countries that owned them would almost certainly be willing to sell them. London would far rather lose the West Indies than London. They would resent it but if FDR twisted their arm they would do so. They couldn't stop the US from simply invading it if it really wanted to. A deal with Germany would give it nothing.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

What if there was no alliance with Japan?

Then the US escorts convoys of supplies all the way to its main cobelligerent against Japan, Britian. Either Germany starts shooting at US ships en masse, and thus starts a war with the US, or gives up U-Boat warfare against Britain. If Germany does somehow give up U-Boat Warfare, well then the US can base fighters and AA in Britain to protect the resources Britain needs to fight Japan, so if Germany bombs the UK, it bombs Americans and bam causus belli for the US to declare war on them. The US sees Germany as the main foe and if it doesn't outright declare war, then it will force Germany to bend over backwards to avoid war with the US, and there is only so far Germany will bend

 

[Cymry-Korean]

And if the US really wanted those colonies the countries that owned them would almost certainly be willing to sell them. London would far rather lose the West Indies than London. They would resent it but if FDR twisted their arm they would do so. They couldn't stop the US from simply invading it if it really wanted to. A deal with Germany would give it nothing.

I'm still at a loss for what the Americans would want with those minor colonies. They aren't gaining anything from them. It would also be wildly out of character for FDR or Wilkie, who was ardently pro British.

 

[Johnrankins]

I'm still at a loss for what the Americans would want with those minor colonies. They aren't gaining anything from them. It would also be wildly out of character for FDR or Wilkie, who was ardently pro British.

I am not saying it would do so , only that it could.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

I am not saying it would do so , only that it could.

Oh I know. I just think that it's a pretty pointless discussion.

 

[Johnrankins]

Germany was an obviously aggressive power. Who cares that the Kaiserreich was ousted if it was replaced by a similarly belligerent state.

Or more accurately a more belligerent state.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The USN had actively sought to limit the size of its main competitors navies in Britain & Japan through the WNT & LNT, as well as sundering the Anglo-Japanese Treaty dead.

One major concern in 1940 was if Britain fell, what would happen to the major fleet units of the RN. There was a very real fear that it may be ceded or seized by Germany.

Now imagine the USA, by choice, approving to the handover of the RN to Hitler, thus leaving the Third Reich with a possible combination of the navies of Germany, France, Italy & Britain. Although probably the extreme situation, it would bring OTL Washington out in a cold sweat. And that's before the IJN are brought into the equation.

The USA had worldwide trading interests - look at the response to Japan's incursions into China. They would be worried not only at the potential loss of trade, but the threat any large navy would pose to their interests. They saw the RN - which, in their wildest moments, never contemplated an Anglo-American war - as such a rival: how do you think they would see a Kriegsmarine on steroids?